• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! FLASH! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. Long-term susbcribers will receive a free coupon code for the James Fox UFO documentary "The Phenomenon," which includes 3 hours of extras, while supplies last. It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

COVID-19 News

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Why is it better? It involves a choice, and the primary consequence of the decision making is how hurt other people get. I don't like the age based analogy, because age isn't a choice.
Exactly. The age based analogy is better because it uses your premise of impairment, but rather than a choice based cause like consuming an intoxicant, it uses a natural factor ( age ), which has a closer relationship with other natural factors like a disease that few people choose to purposefully get infected with, and because COVID-19's relationship to mortality is primarily age based, there is more of a correlation between old-age and risk in both COVID-19 stats and increased risk because of impairment due to age.
But let's go back to insurance, because it's mandatory if you're going to drive on public roads, and it's there primarily to protect other people from you accidentally harming them.
Like I said, we already pay into an insurance system for healthcare. I'm all for that. What I'm not in favor of is these extra measures brought in by the Emergency Measures Act.
Sure, why not though? Isn't that kinda what public healthcare is? And the fact that we all pay for it kinda does mean that we should innately care what other people do that could harm others... or even themselves. Like, say, smoking. I would be just fine with smokers paying more for Alberta Health Care. Or obesity. Or other high risk lifestyle choices.
Interesting that you should go there. With things like smoking, people are making a conscious choice that is within their direct control, at least until they become hopeless addicts and need intervention. However, people don't consciously make a choice to become infected with SARS-CoV-2. And besides that, smokers already do pay a fee in taxes.
Why not? I mean, who exactly is it harming? Please don't fall back on the old tired 'slippery slope' kinda argument.
It's harming all kinds of people by destroying their livelihoods and reducing our overall quality of life. As I've already said, they have the potential to cost more in lives and quality of life than the virus itself. Literally millions of otherwise healthy productive people are suffering as a result right now, and seriously credentialed experts say it just not necessary. So why isn't that part not getting through?
Just like with auto insurance, right? Same deal. Maybe we could have "I don't want to wear a mask" insurance? (I'm kidding).
That's just it. We already have that insurance. It's called AHCIP and it covers all kinds of things, including COVID-19 and things more deadly than COVID-19, without the need for invoking Emergency Measures.
Again, the charts above are exceptionally clear evidence in my mind that those things aren't reasonable enough. Without the bylaws, cases spiked to 3x what they were when we locked down the first time. With the bylaws, they come back down. Kinda QED, isn't it?
As I've said before, the charts are misleading, and I've explained why. So instead of simply repeating that you think the charts aren't misleading, what we need to do is dig into that data to get a more objective picture. I've dug into it as far as I can on my own with the Internet as a resource, and that research definitely gives cause for concern. Is it proof? No. But neither are the graphs and models being pushed by the PTB "proof" either.
Is it though? I mean, the rest of the world broadly thinks it's unreasonable. I know that's an appeal to authority kinda argument, but so is your argument, so even though those people agree with you, more seem to agree with me, so... I'm not sure that gets either one of us anywhere, because as we both know, the majority can be wrong. Or it can be right.
The thing about appeals to authority is that they're in the grey basket when it comes to logical fallacies. In this case the authorities in question are impeccably credentialed academics, backed by thousands more, compared to a relatively few in positions of political power. Both have a certain amount of reasonableness in their rationale, and I'm not one of the big "plandemic" or "scamdemic" conspircay theorist.

I just see an obvious disconnect between those who were in favor of the lockdowns and those who aren't, so that makes me curious, and when I look into it as an intelligent person, I see that there is room for improvement based on the concerns of both sides.
Right. That's the social contract. I'm with you.
At last. I'll take moment out here to pour me some lemonade.
I'm also with you. I also practice martial arts (before covid), and my risk tolerance is actually quite high. My concern is not fear for myself or even really my family, who is all healthy, but for the math of the situation - geometric progression due to the 1.1+ infection rate.
The number of cases isn't the problem. It's the number of hospitalizations, and then the number of those who don't survive. When we look deeper into this situation. that's when the sorts of questions I've been asking come into play, but are very hard to get accurate data on. However what it looks like is that the numbers on mortality are misleading, as well as the numbers on our capacity to deal with the numbers of cases.
Sure. My view is that if we take the lockdown seriously, and do it harshly, it will be over sooner. Which means we can all get back to whatever normal is going to look like after this.
It seems to have worked in New Zealand, where according to the news the other day, there were zero active cases. So maybe if things had gone that way voluntarily, it might be over. But even then, the stats on COVID-19 aren't so bad that such drastic measures are necessary across the board.

This is a disease that healthy people recover from fairly quickly, and virtually all those who don't have some preexisting condition or have exceeded their normal lifespan, so if it wasn't specifically COVID-19 that was pinpointed as the cause, it would be some other disease or form of pneumonia that does them in. So why destroy the lives of millions of healthy people to "protect" the vulnerable, when it's only the vulnerable that need protecting?
Dragging our heels on this likely means that we will have more damage to undo, like very slowly peeling a bandaid off. Might as well rip that sucker off and get on with things.
What you're forgetting is that the whole "flatten the curve" strategy is a trade-off where we deal with more cases over a shorter time span for the disease, versus the same number ( or more cases ) over a longer time span that is more manageable given the system we have to manage it.

So given the stats, we could have just as easily done nothing but exercise stringent controls on the high-risk segment of society, and let the rest go about their daily business, in which case by now we'd be well into the downside of the curve, the costs would be far less, nobody would have lost their livelihoods, or homes, or business. People wouldn't be so depressed and committing suicide, there would be no need for fines and enforcement, and fewer of the high-risk population would have died. How does that not sound like a better strategy?
Right, but it isn't your risk really to take here, isn't it? Couldn't the same line of thinking apply back to "you're willing to take the risk that you're going to go bankrupt or die if you get sick" (therefore privatized healthcare) or "you're willing to take the risk of driving without insurance and going bankrupt" (therefore no need for car insurance), etc. Kinda the US-style far-right individualism that's reaching it's conclusions right now. All of that conveniently forgets that no person is an island, right? What I do to myself actually does impact you slightly through the economy and other factors, and sometimes what I do to you impacts you directly (if I injure you in an auto accident without insurance).
Yes I completely agree. There needs to be a well-reasoned system of checks and balances, and I am perfectly fine with universal healthcare. It's the going beyond that to these extremes that may cost society more than it saves that I'm concerned about.
I'm good with switching that out, it's fairly analogous to what I was trying to say. As far as being a peaceful anarchist, I'm good with that as well. My first big boy job performance review literally said (in writing) "He's a self-reliant anarchist" so I guess I've spent some time there myself ;)
I just knew it was in there somewhere :cool:
 
Last edited:

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member


Long Haulers - The Problem of ‘Long Haul’ COVID​


"The common thread through these comments was a basic one. Each of the patients had already been infected with COVID-19 and presumably had recovered, yet each was still dealing with symptoms of the disease—sometimes vague, sometimes nonspecific—that simply would not go away. Physicians and nurses, already overloaded with emergent cases of the virus, were baffled, often searching for other, more benign explanations for what they were being told."​


Given what we now know, the first suspect for the long hauler syndrome is an immune system response that is compromising neuropilin-1, a protein that uses the same receptors as the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but is necessary for nerve and vascular health, both of which happen to be associated with all the same symptoms as the long-hauler patients. You heard it here first.

What you haven't heard are the potential downsides on a massive scale if this theory happens to be true. But it doesn't take much imagination. The vaccine they're dosing out to hundreds of millions of people causes the same immunological response. However in healthy people, long-hauler symptoms would take longer to manifest. This is one of those theories I hope is really wrong.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member


Ontario Premier ignores harms of lockdown while imposing severe COVID measures​


"Ontario Premier Doug Ford said a lot of theatrical things on Tuesday as he further locked down the more than 14 million people in his province. But instead of focusing on what he said, let’s take a look at what he failed to say ... "

 

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
They could have done this with proper messaging. Making it illegal only brings out the crazies who make it a fake political and or free speech issue. That's more or less what incoming President Biden plans to do here.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
They could have done this with proper messaging. Making it illegal only brings out the crazies who make it a fake political and or free speech issue. That's more or less what incoming President Biden plans to do here.
Biden also wants to kill a major energy project between US and Canada on his first day in office. Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it's not. As for the lockdown strategy, Sweden is presently doing a turn-around on their open-for-business approach and instituting measures. This is a very bad sign, as is this long-hauler syndrome.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Biden wants these energy projects to be examined for environmental impact.
That's already been done, and approved. So one more time around the block. Regardless of whether or not the environmental risks will be "examined", I can pretty much guarantee that there will be insufficient environmental restoration rules in place. I live here in Alberta, and therefore it's heretical for me to say that the tar sands are an environmental disaster on a massive scale, but it's also true.

One study showed that they could completely restore the environment as they go for only about 1% of their profits. But the shareholders and boards have chosen not to do it. In fact they're so cheap that they were flying workers in from Mexico while at the same time complaining how regulations were causing "Albertan jobs". Anyway, this is a major divergence from this thread's topic.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
A Comment On The COVID Conspiracy - Which one was that again?

There have been so many conspiracy theories that I've lost count. The forum here has pages and pages of them. But there have been some themes in the "scamdemic" or "plandemic" or whatever you want to call it, that stick out in my mind, such as that the signal that begins the big change ( whatever it is ) will be some kind of emergency measures enacted due to some natural disaster or disease that will have most of the world population locked-down, and somehow as part of that process there will be a wide-scale culling of the global population. But with what?

The current pandemic had the potential to do both and it may be only just the start. Talking conspiratorially here, it's fairly obvious to me, despite the unproven claims to the contrary, that SARS-CoV-2 came out of the Wuhan lab, and that Chinese authorities knowingly let infected passengers onto international flights.

How convenient is it that this is a disease just happens to be so much more deadly to the older population? How convenient is it that literally millions will die as a direct result of economic lockdowns? How convenient is it that over 50,000 medical workers and scientists who oppose the lockdowns have been virtually silenced?

And now comes stage two, the worldwide vaccination program. How convenient is it that this new type of vaccine was touted as totally safe, until we find out a few people started having severe reactions, and that it shouldn't be given to pregnant women or young people? This was a rapid deployment vaccine that was speed approved based on fear promoted by the media.

But here's where things get really interesting. Now we've got cases where patients who no longer have COVID-19 are suffering from what is called Long Hauler Syndrome. The virus is gone from their bodies, but they are suffering after effects that according to the articles I've read so far, have completely stumped medical experts.

So I recently wrote to one of the heads of a Long Hauler study group suggesting that the symptoms may be a COVID-19 related immune response that is attacking the protein used for building nerves and blood vessels. The symptoms of the long-haul patients match those that this situation would lead to. I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty good at seeing patterns and relationships in certain complex problems.

So I could be completely wrong. But what if I'm not? And this is where the conspiracy comes in again. This new vaccine causes our immune systems to target exactly the same markers. But in healthy people the long-haul symptoms wouldn't be immediately prevalent. They would only start to appear after some time. In other words, the approval process for the vaccine was not long enough to detect if this danger would manifest.

So first comes the virus, then the fear campaign, followed by the lockdowns, and then a worldwide vaccination campaign that could have some serious long term consequences over and above the millions of elderly and poor who will die because of the lockdowns, all orchestrated by bureaucrats, communists, and wealthy industrialists. Hmm. But don't worry. There's really no conspiracy. Is there? Someone please tell me I'm just being paranoid.

 
Last edited:

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Biden also wants to kill a major energy project between US and Canada on his first day in office. Maybe it's a good idea. Maybe it's not. As for the lockdown strategy, Sweden is presently doing a turn-around on their open-for-business approach and instituting measures. This is a very bad sign, as is this long-hauler syndrome.
The funny thing is that the strategists and executives in every mid-to large size oil company up here has known that Keystone was dead or too late for years. It literally no longer is part of most strategies. Even if it comes on-line, it will be too late because of the sandbagging.

It's a non-issue for most. Unfortunately that means banking on TMX and BC politics (which is almost as dumb as Washington), and ship-by-rail and ship-by-truck. Both of which are far less safe and far more carbon-intensive, but that's the kind of decision making you get when you make decisions based on emotion rather than science.

The only real loser for Keystone now are the Albertan taxpayers. Kenney's an idiot for investing in it. He was warned off of it and wouldn't listen.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
The funny thing is that the strategists and executives in every mid-to large size oil company up here has known that Keystone was dead or too late for years. It literally no longer is part of most strategies. Even if it comes on-line, it will be too late because of the sandbagging.

It's a non-issue for most. Unfortunately that means banking on TMX and BC politics (which is almost as dumb as Washington), and ship-by-rail and ship-by-truck. Both of which are far less safe and far more carbon-intensive, but that's the kind of decision making you get when you make decisions based on emotion rather than science.

The only real loser for Keystone now are the Albertan taxpayers. Kenney's an idiot for investing in it. He was warned off of it and wouldn't listen.
Interesting perspective, but I'm too far out of that loop to know what you mean. What it seems like you're saying is that TMX ( presumably an acronym for the trans mountain pipeline expansion ) through BC is a more effective strategy anyway. Being the heretic that I am, I'm fine with no expansion at all until they agree to clean-up ( rather than expand ) the giant mess they have up there in the tar sands. By clean-up, I mean clean it ALL up AS THEY GO, not create some 7% token reclamation zone to demonstrate that they're not doing completely nothing.
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Interesting perspective, but I'm too far out of that loop to know what you mean. What it seems like you're saying is that TMX ( presumably an acronym for the trans mountain pipeline expansion ) through BC is a more effective strategy anyway.
What I'm saying is that most (smart) organizations recognized that we couldn't count on Keystone being there to build a business strategy on - so other transportation strategies were planned. Don't get me wrong, Keystone would be a net positive for us, but most current business plans have been done with the assumption that it won't be there. Instead, Trans Mountain and other strategies are being exploited. Most are costlier, but still work even at ~$30/barrel or higher from what I'm being told. However, they are all (except pipelines) far less environmentally friendly in terms of carbon release and risks for oil leakage. A train derailing while carrying oil is usually more risky than a pipeline leak, for example. And the risks of trucks getting into accidents nets out far higher in terms of spillage as well. And they all take far more energy to transport than a gravity-fed pipeline.
Being the heretic that I am, I'm fine with no expansion at all until they agree to clean-up ( rather than expand ) the giant mess they have up there in the tar sands. By clean-up, I mean clean it ALL up AS THEY GO, not create some 7% token reclamation zone to demonstrate that they're not doing completely nothing.
One day I'll share some stuff with you. Not saying the industry isn't environmentally net problematic, but some of us are actually reclaiming the land and leaving it healthier than we found it. Nothing much grows in the tar sands to begin with, because it's the most massive oil spill on the planet - it was just done by nature.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
What I'm saying is that most (smart) organizations recognized that we couldn't count on Keystone being there to build a business strategy on - so other transportation strategies were planned. Don't get me wrong, Keystone would be a net positive for us, but most current business plans have been done with the assumption that it won't be there. Instead, Trans Mountain and other strategies are being exploited. Most are costlier, but still work even at ~$30/barrel or higher from what I'm being told. However, they are all (except pipelines) far less environmentally friendly in terms of carbon release and risks for oil leakage. A train derailing while carrying oil is usually more risky than a pipeline leak, for example. And the risks of trucks getting into accidents nets out far higher in terms of spillage as well. And they all take far more energy to transport than a gravity-fed pipeline.
Thanks for that. Makes sense to me.
One day I'll share some stuff with you. Not saying the industry isn't environmentally net problematic, but some of us are actually reclaiming the land and leaving it healthier than we found it. Nothing much grows in the tar sands to begin with, because it's the most massive oil spill on the planet - it was just done by nature.
Yes, I've heard that all before, and looked into it, and like I say, only about 7% has been reclaimed, and calling it a natural oil spill is dismissive of the scale of devastation that isn't natural. When only 1% of profits could clean-up everything as they go ( not to mention the jobs it would create ), and they won't do it, then that is where the real problem is. They fight tooth and nail against any regulation that would hold them accountable.
 

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
Thanks for that. Makes sense to me.

Yes, I've heard that all before, and looked into it, and like I say, only about 7% has been reclaimed, and calling it a natural oil spill is dismissive of the scale of devastation that isn't natural. When only 1% of profits could clean-up everything as they go ( not to mention the jobs it would create ), and they won't do it, then that is where the real problem is. They fight tooth and nail against any regulation that would hold them accountable.
Totally hear and agree with you. Not all companies approach this stuff the same way. I’m talking about projects that I’m aware of and tangentially involved with, that I can’t discuss here.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Totally hear and agree with you. Not all companies approach this stuff the same way. I’m talking about projects that I’m aware of and tangentially involved with, that I can’t discuss here.
I would love to hear your perspectives sometime ( off the record ). BTW, my Dad was the head geologist for a number of years at Pan Canadian. They didn't drill a well anywhere in North America unless it went past him first, and he showed me what the real maps look like. You know, the ones that show what companies own what land where, and where all the deposits are ( both operational and in reserve ). It's a whole other world.
 

Randall

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Into the mystic is one of my favourite songs ever. Oddly enough, I discovered Van Morrison by loving the 80's movie 'Dream a Little Dream' as a kid.

Too bad he's a covid denier. It's certainly made me think twice about him.
Interesting. A quick look at some of the articles about Van Morrison's views on the COVID-19 pandemic doesn't look like denial, as in he doesn't believe the SARS-CoV-2 virus is real. He ( and Clapton ) appear to be in the anti-lockdown camp ( same as me and a number of PhDs and over 50,000 medical scientists and health care professionals ).

What is less clear is what he means by the "pseudoscience". If you've followed this issue as closely as I have, you already know that there are two versions of pseudoscience being talked about. One is the pseudoscience around dubious, if not outright false, claims of cures. The other type of pseudoscience, and the one I think Van Morrison is probably referring to, are the contentious and often highly politicized claims that are being touted as scientific, when in-fact, they don't really meet that standard.

The details of those particular claims are better discussed on the COVID-19 News thread.
 
Last edited:

marduk

quelling chaos since 2352BC
I would love to hear your perspectives sometime ( off the record ). BTW, my Dad was the head geologist for a number of years at Pan Canadian. They didn't drill a well anywhere in North America unless it went past him first, and he showed me what the real maps look like. You know, the ones that show what companies own what land where, and where all the deposits are ( both operational and in reserve ). It's a whole other world.
Yup. It's wild how little folks here understand how things like that really work, even though we depend upon it - and as citizens in fact own it for the most part.
 

Top